Gæsteskribent



“What a mess” siger David Limbaugh i Town Hall om de mange selvmodsigende grunde Trump selv og hans stab er kommet med for at fyre FBIs direktør James Comey.

Trump is obviously exasperated that the Democrats are impeding his policy agenda with their obsessive hammering of the bogus charge that he and his team conspired with Russia to interfere with the presidential election.

Despite the incessant media reports and congressional investigations, not a shred of evidence has emerged to substantiate the charge of collusion. We keep saying this, but the media and Democrats keep pretending otherwise. It’s unconscionable. Even James Clapper, former President Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence, has admitted that there is no evidence of collusion and that he has no reason to suspect it.

The real scandal is not Trump’s firing Comey — even if Trump’s supporters are unhappy with the timing and the way it was handled and communicated. The scandal is the liberal establishment’s coordinated conspiracy to falsely allege that Trump stole the presidency by colluding with Russia. Liberals absolutely know that it’s not true, but they will not quit bearing false witness. How dare they posture indignantly about Trump’s supposed dishonesty?

(…)

It is the Democrats’ prerogative to act as the opposition party and to try to impede Trump’s agenda. But it is reprehensible that they are doing so through fraudulent means and further dividing the country with their lies about Team Trump and Russia.

Their counterfeit hysteria knows no bounds. Not long ago, Democrats were demanding Comey’s head, alleging that his public announcements had sabotaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Now they are claiming the firing is a “constitutional crisis” and a “coup.” Not only did Trump have the authority to fire Comey but also the termination does not end the investigation.

Ikke alle er kede af Comey er blevet fyret. Tidligere ‘assistant director’ for FBI James Kallstrom mener at Comey “dansede med djævelen” og ødelagde FBIs renomme. Og det er også Newt Gingrich konklusion

Muligvis har Rich Lowry i National Review ret i, at Trump er “simply incapable of a little deftness”. Ruslandstesen giver jo ikke megen mening, som Rich Lowry også skriver. Hvad skulle russerne dog bruge Trump til, når deres plan ifølge tesen var at hacke Demokraternes og Hillarys servere og siden lække dem til Wikileaks? Og Wikileaks har iøvrigt hele tiden benægtet at russerne var deres kilde.

Russerne har ganske vist en interesse i at den amerikanske præsident er svag og alt, der kan underminere opfattelsen af hans legitimitet, er en gave. Derfor ville de have interesse i at modarbejde Hillary Clinton, netop fordi alle mente hun var favoritten til at vinde. Ironisk nok er konspirationsteorien om deres evne til at afgøre amerikanske valg en gave til Putin.

ANNONSE

Og en anden pointe, som jeg synes overses: Ingen troede på Trump, da han stillede op, han var en joke fra starten og til det sidste kom det som et chok for ekspertisen og medierne, at der fandtes så mange amerikanere, der kunne se bort fra den orange mands vulgariteter og stemme på ham. Kun Trump og Steve Bannon så, at det var tid til forandring – og så, ifølge denne logik, russerne, med deres overraskende forståelse for det amerikanske folkedyb.

Måske har Jonas Goldberg ret i, at hvor den ængstelige venstrefløj ser en tyran i støbeskeen, er der blot en impulsstyret og forfængelig Trump, der bare trives med det drama, han selv skaber. Eller spiller Trump 3D skak med sine modstandere ved at fyre op under konspirationsteorierne som medierne spilder sin tid på? Desværre for den tese, drukner de reelle skandaler også i Trumps kontroverser. “The real constitutional crisis is happening in our judiciary” skriver Eric Ericson i Town Hall, og peger på hvorledes, der derfra kaldes imod at respektere Trumps lovgivning

Dawn Johnsen, a law professor who worked for both Presidents Clinton and Obama, spoke at the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference and urged the federal judges to stop giving judicial deference to the President. “Has Trump in effect forfeited some measure of judicial deference across contexts and cases, through his disrespect for the courts and the rule of law and his displays of prejudice and arbitrary decision making? And if he has not yet reached that point, what more would it take?” she asked.

Johnsen explains, “[W]hen courts review congressional and executive action, they often use standards and doctrines of deference. One way to think about it … is that courts defer to political actors, except when there is good reason not to defer. Clear examples of when deference is not appropriate occur when, in the Court’s words, “a statutory classification … proceeds along suspect lines” or “infringes fundamental constitutional rights.” At the other extreme, deference may be especially appropriate where the Constitution confers special authority to the President or to Congress…, which traditionally has included matters of national security, war powers and foreign affairs.”

She then boldly suggests President Trump is owed no judicial deference because he acts in an arbitrary manner and not necessarily in good faith. As Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected the political elite and Russia-ism has replaced Birtherism as the fever swamp fantasy, more and more lawyers and judges are headed in this direction.

Federal judges have blocked President Trump’s inarguably constitutional travel restrictions merely because of statements candidate Trump made before becoming President Trump. Holding a President to campaign stump speeches has never been done before. In fact, President Obama campaigned for his healthcare plan declaring it not a tax, but the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act under the constitution’s taxing powers. Had they used the president’s campaign statements, the legislation would have been ruled unconstitutional.

In Virginia, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that President Trump is the reason a travel ban is unconstitutional. Judge Niemeyer of the Fourth Circuit, a federal judge not willing to join the fever swamp, asked the ACLU’s lawyer, “We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took…. Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

The ACLU’s lawyer responded, “Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional.” When the federal judiciary will not give the president of the United States due deference merely because they do not like that particular president, we do have a constitutional crisis. Unfortunately for the republic, this is a constitutional crisis the Democrats and media support and are enabling.

Da Milo Yiannopoulos blev spurgt om han virkeligt mente at Trump ville blive en god præsident, svarede han kækt udenom “Oh, it would be so much fun!” Det er i hvert fald ikke kedeligt.

 

Drokles blogger på www.monokultur.dk

ANNONSE